Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Amazon FSx vs Oracle ZFS comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Amazon FSx
Ranking in File System Software
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Storage (14th), File and Object Storage (17th)
Oracle ZFS
Ranking in File System Software
7th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the File System Software category, the mindshare of Amazon FSx is 6.2%, down from 8.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Oracle ZFS is 14.3%, up from 13.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
File System Software
 

Featured Reviews

MuhammadAzhar Khan - PeerSpot reviewer
Shared storage capabilities provide enterprise value with good reliability
Amazon FSx is more costly compared to other storage solutions like EBS or EFS. The auto-scaling feature should be improved, as it currently includes downtime. I need to manually increase the storage, which is not ideal. Integrating FSx with Windows Server is challenging; it's a long process involving Active Directory (AD) setup and synchronization.
Rajesh Sudini - PeerSpot reviewer
Enterprise storage system that offers consistent stability and data security
The replication capability and data security have been the most valuable features When retrieving data from the replication of remote sites, it does not give you immediate results. The RPO and RTO rates could be improved.  We have been using this solution for three and a half years. This is a…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"FSx operates as an independent service, not tied to any server, which eliminates dependencies between applications for storage."
"I rate the stability of Amazon FSx ten out of ten."
"We used it for disaster recovery perspective behind a number of resources, like batch services and RDS."
"The shared storage capability is highly valuable."
"Oracle ZFS is very fast and it is efficient. It has outperformed any hardware array controller that I've ever come across. With Oracle ZFS on my NAS, which is running five, four terabyte drives, when I've had a drive failure and changed one out, it'll rebuild that array in two hours, or maybe less. When you think you're rebuilding almost four terabytes of data redundancy, that's pretty good using an old AMD Turion hardware, that's nothing to complain about."
"The replication capability and data security have been the most valuable features."
"It is not necessarily for the fastest storage or cluster storage, but just for pure storage, it's really hard to beat. It's just been around as long as anything else."
 

Cons

"I've been facing a challenge when doing a failover from FSx side. AWS console does not refresh within a half hour."
"Amazon FSx is more costly compared to other storage solutions like EBS or EFS."
"Amazon FSx is more costly compared to other storage solutions like EBS or EFS."
"A direct FTP feature would be beneficial instead of relying on transmission services."
"ZFS is great for just mass storage, but if you're trying to make fast storage – something like a SAN-type delivery network where you wanted to do any type of RAM disc over the network – it falls flat. ZFS does not do that. It is kind of limiting."
"Oracle ZFS does what I've asked it to do, and it has done it very efficiently. The only time I'm running into issues is with Proxmox. If I run ZFS drives, I find my RAM usage is very high. However, I don't have that problem with the TrueNAS system, where I'm running an old N36 Turion with four gigabytes of RAM, and that's running 24/7. There have been no issues with such a low-powered environment there, it works fine, but with Proxmox it seems to go slow."
"When retrieving data from the replication of remote sites, it does not give you immediate results. The RPO and RTO rates could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The lowest price I have paid is $370 or $380 per month, while the highest can exceed $3,000 per month."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File System Software solutions are best for your needs.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
18%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Retailer
6%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
10%
University
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Amazon FSx?
A direct FTP feature would be beneficial instead of relying on transmission services. Although I haven't worked extensively with FSx, there seems to be room for more improvement.
What is your primary use case for Amazon FSx?
Currently, our use case involves moving shared folders on-premises to FSx for cloud-based storage.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Amazon FSx for Windows File Server, Amazon FSx for Lustre
ZFS
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Neiman Marcus, T Mobile, Docxellent, Matrix, Lyell
Specialized Bicycle Components Inc., Hospital AlemÊo Oswaldo Cruz, DB Schenker Rail, Asia Commercial Bank, First Alliance Bank Zambia Limited, Ricoh Company Ltd., CyberSolutions Inc., NARA INSTITUTE of SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY, SunGard Availability Services, B&H PhotoVideo,
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon FSx vs. Oracle ZFS and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.